Doctor’s Evidence In Damages Claim

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31866, 19 December 1968, Page 30

Doctor’s Evidence In Damages Claim

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, December 18. One of two doctors who are defendants in a claim for $12,420 being heard by Mr Justice Speight in the Supreme Court at Auckland spent most of today in the witness box giving evidence.

. Robert Norman Mitchell, aged 37, a labourer, has claimed $lO,OOO general damages and $2420 special damages from William Birch Allen and John Huthwaite Ronaldson, medical practitioners, of Pukekohe.

He claims that on October 29, 1964, at Pukekohe they certified that he was a mentally deficient person within the meaning of the Mental Health Act and that he required detention. He claims that the certificates were given negligently and without reasonable care. As a result, he claims, he was wrongfully committed to Kingseat Hospital on October 29, 1964, and was detained there until September 14, 1965. Mr G. L. McLeod, of Wellington, appears for the two doctors, and Mr J. S. Henry for Mr Mitchell. After the hearing of evidence today the case was adjourned to February. Dr Allen gave evidence that he had been practising in Pukekohe since 1948. He had treated Mr Mitchell on occasions before the commital on October 29, 1964. He considered himself to be Mr ! Mitchell's doctor. On October 16, 1962. he was called to a severe domestic disturbance in the home. Mrs Mitchell led him to believe there was an argument about Mr Mitchell and his behaviour towards his children. Dr Allen said he discussed the complaint with Mr Mitchell. He tried to persuade Mr Mitchell that he needed treatment for what witness considered to be a mental illness. Mr Mitchell seemed to have no recognition of the seriousness of the complaint. Dr Allen thought he wanted a psychiatric specialist to see him. Mr Mitchell adopted the view that there was nothing wrong with him. Dr Allen said he had been concerned about the health of Mrs Mitchell and the] children. He had treated Mrs Mitchell and some of the children for anxiety symp-l toms. He told Mr Mitchell he was! drinking too much, that his behaviour did not conform to normal social standards, and] that he should realise he! needed treatment. The behaviour he referred to was the allegation of inter-j ference with a daughter. Mr Mitchell originally denied the allegation. Dr Allen said, but either the same day or a fortnight later Mr Mitchell admitted that he got into bed with his daughter. He said he was drunk at the time and did not know what he was doing. Dr Allen said he thought he had used the term voluntary patient or voluntary boarder to Mr Mitchell. Dr Allen said he wondered if Mrs Mitchell’s allegation was true but before October 29, 1964, he had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff, Mr Mitchell, did not always tell the truth. As a result of discussions with police officers and with a child welfare officer he had come to the conclusion that the allegations were true, Dr Allen said. The allegations were brought to his notice on many occasions, Dr Allen said. On October 29, 1964, Mr

Fraser, the child welfare officer, had told him that Mrs Mitchell had complained of a further episode, Dr Allen said. Dr Allen said he saw Mrs Mitchell and then spoke to the police. Then he applied for a bench warrant for Mr Mitchell to be brought in for an examination. Dr Allen said he saw Mr Mitchell in a room at the police station and told him there had been a further allegation of interference. Mr Mitchell denied the allegations. On the certificate he described Mr Mitchell as a rather withdrawn man. He said he now thought the appropriate word was aloof. It indicated that Mr Mitchell did not appear to be in touch with reality. Dr Allen said he considered Mr Mitchell at that time to be of unsound mind and socially defective. Asked what grounds he had for stating that Mr Mitchell was dangerous. Dr Allen said he had previously seen Mrs Mitchell after her husband had attacked her. Dr Allen said he had asked Mr Mitchell a long series of questions at the interview. In cross-examination, Dr Allen said that he had the picture of Mr Mitchell as a whole in his mind at the time of the interview. He felt Mr Mitchell could be certified in terms of the act and that he had a duty to certify him. He agreed that the allegations were the biggest factor in his decision. On the certificate he had presented what he thought were the salient features that helped him make up his mind. Dr Allen added that it would be better to say the most salient features. He said he thought he put in enough to convey the impression that Mr Mitchell was certifiable. Asked if Mr Mitchell was categorical in his denial of misconduct when he was interviewed in 1964, Dr Allen said Mr Mitchell had said the allegations were a pack of lies. ] The determination of men-

tai deficiency was extremely difficult for most general practitioners. Dr Allen said. He recalled answering “No" at an earlier hearing to the question of whether Mr Mitchell was mentally deficient. He said he thought he had also commented that Mr Mitchell would be below the median line. Dr Allen said he thought Mr Mitchell was below the average and thought he could be reasonably close to being mentally deficient. He agreed that to his mind in 1964 if a man was of sub-normal intellect he would be mentally deficient.